Running Man, do you really think they would consider you disassociated for that? I would think that would spell legal trouble for them if that's the case. Do you know that for sure?
itsallgoodnow
JoinedPosts by itsallgoodnow
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
Gopher, yeah, that's true.
I was looking at it from a voting rights standpoint, thinking they maybe had changed it because they didn't want to get sued for illegally disenfranchising anyone. People have fought and died for the right to vote and that could become a real problem for a religious group to deny their people the right to vote, so my point was, are they ducking out of the way of potential legal trouble for it?
I see they will have trouble with other policies, like the child molestation issue.
I'm just trying to figure out what might have motivated that policy change. It's probably not important, it's just one more thing that proves they aren't really getting their ideas from God, like they claim.
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
woops, something happened to that post. here's what I was going for...
About the stumbling, I thought it was interesting they didn't put too much emphasis on it in this QFR. "there may be people who are stumbled... people should recognize though that in matters of christian conscience such as this, each christian has to make his own decision..." It just seems like they are covering their asses on this one.
How about letting them make their own decisions, too on other things, entertainment etc? But no, stumbling is stressed very heavily there. Inconsistency!
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
About the stumbling, I thought it was interesting they didn't put too much emphasis on it in this QFR. "there may be people who are It just seems like they are covering their asses on this one.
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
About the stumbling, I thought it was interesting they didn't put too much emphasis on it in this QFR. "there It just seems like they are covering their asses on this one.
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
About the stumbling, I thought it was interesting they didn't put too much emphasis on it in this QFR. "there may b It just seems like they are covering their asses on this one.
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
But if, hypothetically, a Witness wanted to vote for, let's say, Kerry, in the next presidential election, they couldn't be disfellowshipped, could they? Based on this it seems it's up to each person, and no other witnesses can criticize, ie disfellowship. What do you think? It's written like this for legal reasons - in theory but not in practice?
-
39
WT illegal doctrine
by itsallgoodnow inafter reading the nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm.
i'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people.
am i on the right track with this?
-
-
itsallgoodnow
After reading the Nov 1 1999 questions from readers about voting... http://www.jwfiles.com/vote.htm. I'm wondering if they felt they needed to change their teachings on this because they feared legal action against them for disenfranchising their people. Am I on the right track with this? Can you think of any of any other teachings that could eventually get them into legal trouble in this same way?
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
itsallgoodnow
After reading parts of this thread I find it interesting the Watchtower apologists are coming out of the woodwork to post on a "JWs-are-banned" thread, angrily. They get angry over what they fear most. The end of their faith. Doesn't matter what we think of it here, it's for the courts to decide, and decide they will, one way or another, eventually. What I believe is eventually the truth about JWs, Christianity, whatever -- the truth will come out. What people will be left with then is a strange bit of history.
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
itsallgoodnow
After I ran across some of his other posts, I regret I wasted time replying on this thread to ScoobySnax. Shouldn't have bothered. I hadn't realized he's been out here doing this for a long time now. Oh well - live & learn!